Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005857

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/50921/2023
LP/05435/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 30 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

JK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Litigant in Person
For the Respondent: Mr E Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 1 July 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a citizen of Afghanistan. His date of birth is 1 October 2003. He came to the UK on an unknown date. He made a claim for asylum on 19 September 2019. He was aged 15 when he came to the UK and he was aged 21 at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) and the Upper Tribunal.
2. In a decision dated 8 April 2025 promulgated on 28 April 2025 a panel comprising Upper Tribunal Judge McWilliam and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Kelly set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Latta) to allow the Appellant’s appeal on asylum grounds and under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
3. The Appellant’s case is that his family left Afghanistan and moved to Pakistan before he was born because of a land dispute with the Taliban. His family resided and worked in Pakistan illegally. Whilst in Pakistan the Appellant was approached by the Taliban. They attempted to kidnap him. He is not entitled to Pakistani citizenship but he is in any event at risk on return from the Taliban should he be returned either to Pakistan or Afghanistan.
4. The finding of the First-tier Tribunal that the Respondent has not discharged the burden of proof in respect of Pakistani citizenship was maintained by the panel having found that the judge did not err in law.
5. However, the panel found the second of the Secretary of State’s (SSHD) grounds of appeal made out in that the judge erred when assessing risk on return to Afghanistan because he did not consider the relevant background evidence relied on by the SSHD as regards “Westernisation”. Moreover, he miscalculated the period of time that the Appellant has lived in the West.
6. The Upper Tribunal made directions relating to the service of evidence.
7. The matter was adjourned for a resumed hearing. When setting aside the decision and adjourning the hearing the panel observed that the task for the Upper Tribunal would be to determine risk on return to Afghanistan. It was noted that the FtT did not make findings on the Appellant’s substantive claim to be at risk on return from the Taliban and that this would be considered by the Upper Tribunal.
Preliminary matter
8. The Appellant had not attended the hearing before the Upper Tribunal by 11 a.m. The solicitors who represented the Appellant at the error of law hearing and before the FtT have come off the record. The Tribunal was unable to make contact with the Appellant. I am satisfied that he was sent the error of law decision and a notice of hearing. He has not complied with the directions. With reference to the overriding objective at Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules (“2008 Rules”) I concluded that it was just and fair to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant’s absence.
The Appellant’s evidence
9. The Appellant has made three witness statements of 11 February 2020, 9 November 2023 and one which is undated. His evidence is that when he was young his parents told him that they left Afghanistan before he was born because the Taliban had threatened to confiscate their land. If they had not left, they would have been seriously harmed. The Taliban came to their home and attacked the Appellant’s mother. The Appellant’s immediate and extended family left Afghanistan. The family travelled to Peshawar in Pakistan where the Appellant was born. His family did not talk about their problems in Afghanistan and they never spoke about any family having been left in Afghanistan.
10. The Appellant said that he was approached three times by the Taliban when he was in Pakistan. The first time he was aged 12. This was two years before he left Pakistan. He was living in Kandi at the time. He was walking home from school. He was with friends when a car stopped and two or three men jumped out. Their faces were concealed. They followed the Appellant home. His father said that he believed that the Taliban were responsible and it was then that he told the Appellant about what happened to the family in Afghanistan. He said that on the other two occasions when he realised that he was being followed, he knew it was the Taliban because of the way they looked and their actions were similar to on the first occasion. On the third occasion he ran into a stranger’s house. The stranger told the Appellant that it was the Taliban pursuing him and they were going to kidnap him. The Appellant says that after the third kidnap his parents told him not to go to school anymore as it was not safe to the leave the house. The Appellant left Pakistan and remained in contact with his father via WhatsApp until about July 2022. The Appellant has now, since the SSHD’s decision, discovered that his father returned to Afghanistan following the kidnap of the Appellant’s younger brothers in July or August 2022. His father told him that he was scared for his safety and that of his family in Pakistan. The family has returned to Kunar province. They are moving regularly. His father is afraid of those who kidnapped the Appellant’s younger brothers. The last time that he had contact with his father was before Ramadan in February 2024. On 20 March 2024 the police confiscated the Appellant’s mobile phone and he has lost all his numbers. The Appellant does not know his father’s whereabouts. He has no family living in Kabul.
Findings
11. I heard oral submissions from Mr Terrell. I will engage with these in my findings. Having considered the evidence in the round, I find that the Appellant is not credible.
12. I find that it is damaging to the Appellant’s account that in his witness statement he said that he was approached for the first time by the Taliban when he was aged 12, which was two years before he left Pakistan. However, when interviewed he said that he was aged 15 (Q71). The Appellant has built on his account and given more detail about it as time goes on. It is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would have lapses in memory or problems recounting events that occurred when he was a child; however, the he has given more details about events the further away in time they occurred. There is no medical evidence to support that there is a reasonable explanation for this. For example the account given in the asylum interview makes no mention of people jumping out of cars. In respect of the second incident in the interview at Q77 the Appellant said that it occurred when he was coming home from the Madrassa (which is consistent with para 21 of the witness statement dated 11 February 2020); however, this is in contrast to the answer he gave to Q75 of the interview which is that the second incident occurred when he was going to the Madrassa. This is not a significant inconsistency, but I consider it in the context of the evidence as a whole.
13. In respect of the third incident, in the asylum interview at Q83 the Appellant said that he went into a stranger’s house in his village to hide. The Appellant says that he then went home and remained in Pakistan for ten to eleven months in hiding. I find that it is possible that the Taliban would not have spoken to Appellant as claimed throughout the three incidents and that he could have escaped from them, but there is no explanation why the Taliban did not come to the Appellant’s home. He lived in a village and there is no suggestion that his whereabouts was not known to them. The SSHD took the point in the decision letter that it was reasonable to suggest that if the Taliban have problems with the Appellant’s father they would not target the Appellant’s siblings and/or approach the family home directly. Since this time the Appellant has expanded on his evidence. He says that his father has returned to Afghanistan following the kidnapping of his younger brothers. The suggestion that the Appellant’s father would return Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban, to escape threats from the Taliban in Pakistan does not make sense.
14. The Appellant’s evidence that the Taliban was responsible for the attacks is based on what his father (and the stranger in respect of the third incident) said to him; however, there is no evidence to support that this was anything but speculation. The Appellant’s evidence is that he remained in Pakistan for a year, without experiencing problems from the Taliban, before leaving Afghanistan. It can reasonably be inferred that the Taliban knew where the Appellant and his family lived which undermines the Appellant’s claim to be at risk.
15. Having considered the evidence in the round, I conclude that the Appellant has not discharged the burden of proof. The SSHD raised a number of credibility issues which are not engaged with head on by the Appellant in his witness statements and the SSHD was unable to cross-examine the Appellant on these issues in his absence.
16. There is no cogent evidence relating to the Appellant’s account of what happened before his birth in Afghanistan has anything to do with the account that he now gives about risk from the Taliban on his return. I find that the Appellant’s family are living in Afghanistan and that they are not in hiding. I have taken into account what the Appellant says about his mobile having been confiscated. The evidence from West Midlands police does not identify the Appellant as an owner of a confiscated mobile phone. In any event, it is not explained why the Appellant would not have asked the police for his contacts or why the phone has not been returned to him bearing in mind the Appellant’s evidence that no further action has been taken against him by the police. I find that the Appellant has not established that he is not in contact with his parents.
17. I will go on to consider risk on return on the basis of “Westernisation”. The first matter of importance is that the Appellant has not explained in his evidence how or why he will be perceived as having been westernised. His evidence is not that he will wear western clothes and be clean shaven or that he has a particular accent. The Appellant lived in Pakistan until when he came to the UK. This is not enough in itself to enable an Appellant to say that they have been Westernised. In any event, regardless of the lack of detail in the Appellant’s evidence, the Home Office Country Policy and Information Note – Afghanistan: Fear of the Taliban version 4.0 August 2024 (the CPIN) at para 3.1.5 supports that on the face of it the Appellant is unlikely to be at risk having made an unsuccessful asylum claim and claiming to have been westernised.
18. The CPIN at para 16 engages in more detail with the concept of Westernisation as a risk factor. There is an intolerance towards Westernisation but the CPIN does not support that this would put this Appellant at risk. The CPIN supports a level of intolerance, but at para 16.4.3 it is said that more important than clothing is a person’s behaviour and adaptation to social norms. There is simply no evidence from the Appellant concerning that he has been influenced by western culture and lifestyle to such an extent that this would put him at risk.
19. The Appellant relies on a report by Tim Foxley, a country expert, dated 9 November 2023 (which predates the 2024 CPIN). I have considered this together with the CPIN. At [53] he talks of Westernisation. He states that given that the Taliban is now in power he would expect the population to exhibit a less tolerant view towards westernised trappings. The evidence does not support that a person would be at risk on account of Westernisation and in any event as stated this Appellant has not produced cogent evidence of his Westernisation. The evidence of Mr Foxley does not establish that it is reasonably likely that someone with the Appellant’s profile would be at risk. At para 55 Mr Foxley refers to the UNCHR’s opinion about the risks which specifically refer to people being tortured, threatened or killed on the grounds that they were perceived to have adopted values associated with these countries or they had become foreigners or that they were spies. There is nothing to support that this Appellant would fit into any of these categories. Tim Foxley accepts at [56] that there is a lack of reliable evidence specifically documenting Westernisation. His opinion about the Appellant being at risk is equivocal (see [57]). It depends on the extent to which he has integrated himself into UK culture. While I accept that discrimination may be more significant outside of Kabul where values will be more conservative, the evidence does not establish that this Appellant will be at risk as a result of Westernisation. Much of Mr Foxley’s report is forward looking and I am mindful that it predates the 2024 CPIN.
20. What Mr Foxley says about the risk to the Appellant at the airport at [49] is unsupported and speculative. He says that “it is plausible that [the Appellant’s] witting or unwitting revelations if questioned will place him at further risk”. While I accept that the Taliban have a track of human rights violations, the suggestion of risk on return at the airport is unsupported by any evidence specifically on the point. Further what is meant by witting or unwitting revelations” is insufficiently explained.
21. For all of the above reasons I do not find that the Appellant is at risk of persecution or serious harm on return to Afghanistan.
22. In respect of Article 8 ECHR the Appellant has put forward very little evidence of family and private life. He has been in the UK since 2019, which is a relatively short period of time, although I accept at his age it is not insignificant. He has been in foster care and I understand that his case is that he has family life with his foster parent. There is no up to date evidence about the relationship. I take into account that he has made friends in the UK. However, he will be returning to his family in Afghanistan. He cannot meet the Immigration Rules in respect of private of family life. There is no evidence of very significant obstacles to integration. Properly considering the facts in this case and having full regard to s117B of the 2022 Act, any interference with the Appellant’s rights under Article 8 is proportionate.
Notice of Decision
23. The Appellant’s appeal is dismissed on asylum and human rights grounds.

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

13 August 2025